Re: [Detnet] The new d-ACH format

[Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]>]

Hi Fan,
thank you for helping progress the DetNet OAM work.

I have a couple of questions for the group:

   - Do you agree that the proposed d-ACH is a good and needed solution for
   the Service sub-layer OAM?
   - Do you support it being included in draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam and
   then discussed as a part of the WG document?


Regards,
Greg

On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 6:26 PM Yangfan(Fan,IP Standards) <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> I agree we need a thoroughly discussion to this new d-ACH format. Let’s
> continue the discussion in biweekly OAM meetings.  And I’d be very happy to
> involve myself more on this work.
>
> One more comment to OAM meetings, maybe it is good to share the meeting
> minutes in WG after each call, could be short but nice. I can do it as I
> propose it and doesn’t bring burdens to others.
>
> Besides, I strongly encourage people to join this helpful meeting to
> progress DetNet OAM as we have already reached many common understandings
> on OAM requirements in previous months.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Fan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* detnet [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 18, 2021 7:54 AM
> *To:* Yangfan(Fan,IP Standards) <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* DetNet WG <[e-mail]>; DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Detnet] The new d-ACH format
>
>
>
> Hi Fan,
>
> thank you for your comments and questions. Please find my notes in-lined
> below tagged GIM>>,
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 2:26 AM Yangfan(Fan,IP Standards) <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> Regarding the new d-ACH format, I have a few questions to share, hopefully
> trigger more discussions.
>
> 1)       I feel we need more specifications of Node ID.  Using 20 bits to
> indicate a Node in MPLS data plane, can I deduce it is an MPLS label? In
> any MPLS data planes except SR-MPLS, there is no definition to use a label
> to identify a node. If we want a format generic for all MPLS data planes, I
> wonder whether node id is a good indicator? Whether 20 bits is enough?
>
> GIM>> I agree that the DetNet WG will have more discussions on the
> definition of the Node ID field. I am looking forward to your participation
> in these discussions.
>
> 2)       I also noticed there is a session ID, but is only 4 bit length,
> which I believe is way too short. Moreover, whether originator node ID and
> session ID are duplicated here to identify an OAM session. To dig deeper,
> DetNet OAM should be stateless or stateful?
>
> GIM>> Session ID field is only a tentative name. Would it help if we mark
> it Reserved?
>
> 3)       if we plans to take advantages of CFM y.1731 mechanisms,  level
> and flags are necessary but the length also needs further considerations.
>
> GIM>> It is not clear if DetNet OAM could benefit from re-using some
> principles of Y.1731/CFM as the latter doesn't provide special support for
> the Service sub-layer.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to further discussions.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Fan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* detnet [mailto:[e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Greg Mirsky
> *Sent:* Wednesday, November 17, 2021 4:55 AM
> *To:* DetNet WG <[e-mail]>
> *Cc:* DetNet Chairs <[e-mail]>
> *Subject:* Re: [Detnet] The new d-ACH format
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> I hope you've recovered from the IETF-112 (timing on the West Coast was
> brutal).
>
> Please share your thoughts, comments, and questions about the proposed new
> format of d-ACH and whether you support including it and updating
> draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 5:14 AM Greg Mirsky <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> Dear All,
>
> Bala'zs has presented the new d-ACH (DetNet Associated Channel Header)
> format at the DetNet WG meeting. Earlier this week, the new d-ACH format
> was presented at joint PALS, MPLS, and DetNet meeting and received several
> positive comments. At the DetNet WG meeting, it was proposed to integrate
> the technical part, the new format of d-ACH
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-varga-detnet-service-sub-layer-oam-01#page-6> into
> the draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam
> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam/>.
>
> Please, respond with the indication of your support or no support for the
> proposed update of the WG document.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Greg (as the Editor of draft-ietf-detnet-mpls-oam)
>
>